Stan Allen presents the transition of architecture from object to field as a means of approaching heterogenous space in architecture and urban design. The field is not just “another design trope, in that the field significantly alters the modernist relationship between form, programme and space, as well as blurring the normative boundary between discrete architectural building and larger urban forces and conditions.”(1) This implies that there is a clear shift from architecture as the means of producing buildings to that of organising manifold relationships within an environmental context. Sanford Kwinter describes the field as “a space of propagation, of effects. It contains not matter, rather vectors and speeds, local relations of difference.”

Field conditions are bottom up phenomena that rely upon intricate local connections. A while ago I undertook a project in Bognor Regis to consider the spatial and productive conditions that might form a new masterplan approach to the faded seaside town. It was observed that those connections are critical over many levels of the urban conditions that operate across the town. These connections are critical in ensuring that any intervention (be it physical, developmental, economic, social or political) be successful and integrated into the existing context. Stan Allen states that “Form matters, but not so much the forms of things as the forms between things.”(2) Often theory operates within a vacuum of academia, however it is important that it is applied in real world conditions to test it and develop it further. Here lies the dichotomy of testing ‘bottom up’ theory - it’s arisen out of ongoing practice, fleshed out in academic isolation and re-applied like a laboratory rat, observed and experimented upon rather than growing organically out of an existing condition within it’s context.

Interdependent field conditions as considered in Bognor Regis (S7S 2014)

Because Bognor Regis has an existing context of fishing and working into the sea it is conceivable that a development such as that which I am proposing be considered an evolution. The fishermen have always relied upon the tide being in to launch their boats, dependent upon the tidal (field) conditions to enable their interaction with the sea. To expand this field condition it makes sense to facilitate a means that would enable the fishermen to launch their boats at any point during the day (or night). Proposing a breakwater with jetties on the inside offers this to the fishermen as well as giving some safety to the boats and releasing the shoreline from their presence. Facilitating the fishermen to fish at different times of the day enables their field to grow and in turn the connections it has to grow.

Field conditions are expandable, they can be replicated, manipulated and developed. Evolving the existing conditions into an expanded field sometimes means taking the strategy for one program and applying it to another. For instance; the beach along the South Coast often hosts beach plants, many of which are either edible or productive in some way. Because Bognor Regis’ beach was quarried extensively during the 19th century the plant stock there was devastated. Re-introducing Sea Kale, Horned Poppies, grasses and other plants and shrubs will provide a more stable beach condition whilst offering productive space to the benefit of the local community whilst also expanding the ecosystem further.

Expanding the productive field in Bognor Regis (S7S 2014)

The way that this re-introduction takes effect can be predicted but should not be controlled. Allen refers to artists who work with materials that cannot be controlled, they’re rather directed and the naturally occurring results become the outcome. Similarly with the expanding field conditions there will be a naturally evolving outcome that becomes the overall condition. The sense is that the “matter itself shape and calculate possible configurations, only loosely directed”(3) by the architect or designer. When considered in the context of community this becomes even more important to keep in mind, architects and planning professionals accustomed to considering conditions, analysing potential and proposing opportunities frequently miss out on the opportunity to enable local conditions to define themselves, instead favouring the design approach. This goes against many years of training, turning the top-down approach upside down and starting from the perspective of people, rather than quantifiable outcomes.

Considering the field as a material condition rather than a metaphor enables one to think more about the connections between organisation, matter and making. Often there is conflict between these conditions but considering them as a series of events or activities rather than objects enables them to become part of a fluid and sensitive response to the local differences. For architecture this is a particularly interesting possibility where traditionally it acts as the incoming juggernaut of change rather than the connection between existing systems. These connections often thrive at a local level where ownership can be held and becomes a tangible marker of change in the field.

Generating an architectural field where built forms operate as part of a sequence of events, they’re part of a local process and invested within a particular context is vitally important for Bognor Regis’ growth and development. The sea is Bognor Regis’ kinetic threshold and offers the expansion of it’s field where new spaces and experiences can be formulated as part of a local strategy for productivity. Brighton and Hove has clear geographical thresholds in the form of the South Downs National Park to the north and the sea to the South. With sub-urban sprawl impossible strategyic consideration needs to be given to where the spatial kineticism for the city can be considered, addressed and appropriated to serve the needs of the city, both in a productive and architectural manner.

Brighton & Hove Land strategy considerations

Land is of short supply in Brighton and Hove. As already noted the city is sandwiched between the sea and the South Downs National Park, both of which act as barriers to conventional housing development when homes are developed in traditional low rise or high rise formats with gardens and green spaces as appropriate for the assumed demographics of end users. This context is not unique to Brighton & Hove however given the proximity and ease of connection with London, Brighton & Hove has seen it’s housing market, and housing stock expansion placed under additional open market stress which has seen land prices reach a premium reducing the viability of affordable housing provision. Coupled with the increasing numbers of students wishing to study at the two universities within the city and the lack of campus based housing means that there is additional need placed on the housing supply.

BHCC Urban Fringe Assessment 2014

With the Urban Fringe Land Assessment carried out by Brighton & Hove City Council in 2014 it was noted that there was insufficient land for the required 5 year supply of new housing stock. This has meant that the city council has had to consider how to increase density within existing areas of housing in the city, replace or convert commercial and office property with housing, and consider how to increase the size of the Marina to provide for additional housing units to be built. These strategies are limited in their capacity, the balance of housing supply with commercial and office space in the city are inextricably linked as the need for employment space has to be considered alongside the increase in population.

As such it is important to consider what other strategies might be viable to increase the provision of land that is viable for housing. These strategies will need to consider a degree of supply duration, but equally the impact on infrastructure, local community resources, green spaces, access to the national park, connection to services etc. With this in mind some options that might be considered with these things in mind are listed below for initial consideration.

1 - Allotments

At present allotments sites are located across the city, predominantly in the East and the West which forces a large proportion of people to travel via car to their allotment causing parking issues, increases pollution and decreases the frequency of use. The location of the allotments away from people’s homes also means that they have to leave equipment on their site, often having to utilise a shed which is a target for thieves and vandals. This diminishes the productivity and viability of the allotment ideals.

If allotments could be located closer to people’s homes then it would reduce the travel requirements, increase usage and decrease pollution. To do this would require the identification of potential growing spaces scattered across the city. Currently there are a significant number of under-used green spaces which have to be maintained by the Local Authority which could serve as community gardens or public allotment host spaces. Additional some space within larger public parks could be identified and handed over to allotmenteers or community growing groups as has been successfully carried out a Preston Park in Brighton, but is a prevalent system in cities across Europe.

Brighton and Hove allotment distribution map (S7S 2017)

If spaces such as these could be appropriated for growing, it would have a manifold impact; Firstly it would see under-used spaces in the city obtain a level of public ownership, this in turn could eliminate the Local Authority maintenance requirements thereby reducing workload and budget. Secondly in allocating existing allotmenteers to these spaces would free up spaces on the existing sites. If carried out on a like for like basis this could enable a complete re-think of how allotments are provided across the city. Thirdly, by using public spaces for growing food it raises the profile of more sustainable methods of food production within the city, reduces food miles, reduces use of pesticides and GM crops, increases bio-diversity within the urban centre, enhances opportunities for demographic and ethnic mixing and cohesion and potentially has the capacity to increase CO2 absorption and carbon capture too.

The notion of re-considering the location of allotments within the city will have significant implications for those people who have held sites for many years and consider it to be part of their life and connection to the city. Uprooting some of these allotmenteers would have to be carefully considered, timetabled and managed to prevent any sense that people are being disenfranchised in any way. Case study cities & towns such a Berlin, Havanna, Chicago, Bankok, Todmorden, Rosario (Argentina) & Harare can provide exemplars of how such systems have been strategically implemented and managed to maximise benefits to the public and the municipality.

2 - Car parking

Across the city of Brighton & Hove there are a number of significant car parks which take up large land footprints and serve to encourage the use of Petrol & Diesel engined vehicles through their minimal offer of electric charging points or alternative fuel supplies etc. Car parking in the city is frequently cited as being one of the most contentious elements of public engagement for any local authority, both in terms of street based permit parking for residents, but equally with regard to the ever increasing cost of leaving a vehicle in the city for any duration of time.

Such considerations relating to the cost of parking cannot be separated from the increasing cost and viability of alternative and more sustainable transport systems such as buses, trains, cycling and walking. The implementation of sustainable transport routes for bicycles and buses in the city coupled with the reduced speed limits across the city have been met with high levels of anger with the principle complaint regarding the increased time it takes to drive a private car in and out of the city centre. It should be noted that there is no incentive for people to utilise public transport when it costs more than parking a car. Equally dis-incentivising is the limited provision of safe cycle routes covering the whole city. To properly encourage an increase in zero carbon transport such as cycling it is imperative to make it viable for all age groups, at present it is impossible to safely cycle across the city with young children and as such cycling cannot being fostered as a principle form of urban transport as has happened across cities in the Netherlands for instance.

Increasing opportunities for sustainable transport and in fact doing more to encourage it ultimately results in a reduced need for public car parking in the city. It will not be viable, or even preferable to eliminate it altogether, however it is possible to consider how it might better be integrated into new development across the city to free up the current parking sites for alternative uses such as housing. Many other cities across Europe utilise local planning policies to provide vehicle parking underground, below both existing and new developments. As a result streets are generally less occupied with vehicles, and there are less significantly sized parking developments taking up urban space. In Japan and other far Eastern countries where urban densities are extreme in contrast to here in the UK, below ground car parking is the norm and can be incredible in its ingenuity and scope.

If Brighton & Hove were to implement a local planning guidance which stipulated that all new commercial and residential development had to provide car parking below it’s street level, and of significantly higher numbers of spaces that the bare minimum then it would be possible to redevelop the existing multi-storey and open plan car parks across the city to provide the additional housing which is so needed.

3 - High rise development

Proponents of social housing will expertly argue that the issue of housing density, and in particular the elevation of housing density is inextricably linked to increased levels of social deprivation and decreased quality of life and opportunity for residents. It is also frequently argued that high rise developments offer far less safety for residents in the event of a fire as so recently and tragically exemplified at Grenfell Tower. It has also been successfully argued many times that high density housing is not only possible through high-rise, but it is equally viable through low rise, traditional terraced housing provision.(4)

The proposed high rise development at Preston Barracks by the University of Brighton

It is therefore not necessarily the best course of action to pursue high density, high rise options when considering the maximisation of residential units on any particular site, or within a particular area of a city. However, the same cannot be said for utilising high-rise as a method of increasing other forms of accommodation such as commercial/office space. Where offices are only occupied for half of any given day they do not suffer the same social issues such as loitering and anti-social behaviour, increased risk of fire through overnight occupation, diversification of ownership through freehold and leasehold conditions resulting in reduced maintenance programmes etc, they also do not have the same requirement for outside space which goes with the provision of decent homes for people.

It must be viable to look at how the provision of commercial/office space in the city could be combined. For instance, rather than allow two 5 storey office blocks to be constructed within a certain radius of each other, a single 10 storey office block could be built thereby enabling the second site to be developed to provide homes. This of course has significant implications for a multitude of considerations; project development finances, ownership/partnerships for developers and firms, overshadowing within the city and rights of light, shared responsibilities for maintenance between firms etc. However, as with all such strategic approaches there are also benefits to be considered; financial risk spread between development partners, reduction in number of building sites has positive impact on the city, increased height of building also increases the opportunities for developing more sustainable buildings with reduced energy needs & enhanced energy production opportunities through Photo-voltaics etc.

This approach would require firms to work together, this perhaps therefore requires a more substantial mind-shift for prospective developers as well as owner-builders which steps away from the currently preferred approach of building/ownership for self alone. This is a mind-set which is not only seen in the commercial sector but equally (perhaps even more) within the housing sector. It requires building development to be considered as a more integral element to the built environment and city community as a whole rather than being a stand alone element. Encouraging the sharing of buildings has to be based on a recognition of the need of the city as a whole, enabling and ensuring that commercial development plays it’s part in the provision of housing supply.

4 - Roof spaces

We can consider roof spaces as out of reach, as un-available, as non-viable. In the UK and certainly a majority of the developed world utilising roof spaces for residential development is not acceptable. It is perfectly normal to assume that it is open for business however, whether this is advertising, telecommunications, energy generation, plant location, aerial transport hubs etc. In the developing world it is frequently considered normal for roof spaces to become occupied by shacks, to have shanty dwellings layering on top of each other creating a geological vernacular. Even in cities within the USA roof spaces are utilised by those who keep pigeons, this who want to grow food, those who want to socialise. Frequently this access is only available to those who occupy the buildings however as homelessness increases within the developed world these spaces have the potential to become safer spaces for rough sleeping than the streets.

Black House by Simon Condor Architects is built atop a C.19th Warehouse

All of this concept relates to issues of ownership, both of the building itself but equally relating to the air-rights above it. As such legislation within the UK prevents access to the space above a building by anyone other than the owner of the building. It’s unclear as to how these factors are considered in the rest of the world. There have been examples of rooftop development within the UK in recent years, frequently small pavilions for small scale and short term occupation, but also some full residential development.

Pragmatically the structure of the building might not allow for development, however given our historic building methodologies, particularly our affiliation and affection for substantial masonry buildings there is often more strength in the structure than might be immediately apparent. Opportunities for increasing occupation upon and within a building offer a method for increasing density in all areas of the city. The additional issues revolving around rights to light and wind loadings will undoubtedly affect the viability of rooftop developments both within the city and on it’s fringes however this and other issues should not be seen as a blanket reason not to investigate opportunities to develop above existing structures.

Rather than simply considering land opportunities on the terra firms we need to consider what opportunities there might be above (and below) the general plane of existence that is Ground level. Utilising the roofscape as a new territory within the city diversifies the opportunities available for housing supply within the city, perhaps best suited to small scale intervention to support those suffering disadvantage resulting in homelessness. Elevating the needs of the poor demonstrates that all people deserve housing, not just those who can afford it.

5 - Community Air Trust

So whilst Community Land Trusts are a well established and increasingly popular approach to enabling communities gain long term secure access to housing and other assets no-one to date has explored the idea of enabling community access to the air space above the city or built environment. This might sound utterly ludicrous; surely there could be no genuine or provably beneficial use for the air space above a neighbourhood other than in the provision of the correct gases to keep people breathing and plants growing? However, without exploration how would we ever figure out whether this is possible, viable and/or suitable? It sounds like something from Science Fiction to consider accessible spaces floating in the sky, however history has shown us that sometime it is precisely the inconceivable approach of sci-fi that leads people to develop technologies and approaches that revolutionise how we live.(5)

I would not intend to even begin to explore the potential difficulties or opportunities that such an idea could present, that should be reserved for a more specific study, however the notion that communities could be elevated above the ground should not be thrown away too lightly. To return to the introduction of this paper, considering spatial boundaries, kinetic thresholds and the ‘normative boundaries’ as Stan Allen describes them, is essential to the development and growth of our communities, neighbourhoods, towns and cities as we seek to consider the changing environmental factors that we have inflicted upon ourselves.

6 - Densification

Many parts of the city are chronically under developed, that is the density of development is exceptionally low. Buildings are spaced out in a manner which prevents pragmatic and efficient use of the surrounding land, diminishing the opportunities to infill between buildings and expand existing buildings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently referred to the UK as an intensely crowded island, however, only 5.9% of the UK is actually built on. Here in Brighton and Hove that figure is considerably higher as we are a city and therefore it would be expected.

As can be seen in the statistics above Brighton and Hove as an urban centre has higher percentages of buildings and (perhaps surprisingly) urban green spaces whilst having a lower percentage of farmland and what might be considered natural designation. When compared with another city, such as Portsmouth, just along the coast which is coastal locked in three directions Brighton and Hove is still not particularly densely developed. Portsmouth is ~40.25km2 in size with a population of 205,400, whilst Brighton & Hove is ~87.5 km2 with a population of 278,000 people. This gives Portsmouth an average density of 5,103 people per sq/km, whilst Brighton & Hove has a much lower average density of 3,177 people per sq/km. As a city we do not utilise and maximise the space available for development, in the case of housing supply this means that we have the opportunity to consider how to infill, expand and densify our city.

7 - Land reclamation

As a city we are locked between the South Downs National Park and the Sea, with townships to the East and the West there is nowhere new to extend the city boundary within the conventional methodologies. Elsewhere in the world land reclamation is a common approach to increasing housing and commercial development. Cities such as Boston in the USA, Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Kobe in Japan, Hong Kong and Macau in China along with large parts of Bangladesh, Bahrain and Singapore have all reclaimed significant amounts of land from the sea for building on. China has reclaimed 4,600 square miles of land, proportionally to the size of the country this is minor, however the Netherlands has reclaimed 2,700 square miles of land which for such a small and densely populated country is enormous, it equates to 17% of it’s land mass. Couple that with the Netherlands becoming one of the (if not the) most productive farming countries within the European Economic Area and there is no dispute over how valuable land reclamation can be for a nation.

Netherlands Land Reclamation map

Brighton Marina represents the only place where in Brighton we have dared to reach out into the seascape. Given the exposure that the Brighton & Hove coastline has towards the English Channel and Atlantic Ocean any development has the potential to be seen as in the direct firing line of the prevailing winds and storms. Depending on how any development were conceived it is entirely possible that developing out at sea could generate an enhanced resort location along the Brighton seafront by breaking the influx of heavy swells further out to sea thereby calming the waters closer to the historic coastline.

Development along the seafront would require consent and buy in from the Crown Estate who own approximately half of the UK’s foreshore and tidal riverbeds along with almost the entirety of the seabed out to a distance of 12 nautical miles from the foreshore. This presents a significant planning hurdle which would have to be presented and formulated in conjunction with the Local Authority and National Government as it would form a precedent for development elsewhere in the country as well.

Development out at sea has implications for energy production as well. The Rampion wind farm off the coast is a massive feat of engineering but is limited to just that. It’s provision of significant electricity for the nation should not be diminished but the opportunity to develop at sea needs to be considered for whatever manifold opportunities might be possible.

Conclusions

Developing a housing strategy for Brighton & Hove cannot be solely confined to the conventional approaches, as a city we face extreme needs within a social context of change and an environment of increasing threat from climate change. Whilst it would be unreasonable to assume in any setting that such diverse options as set out above could be delivered purely by a community led approach, incorporating thinking such as this into an overall strategy for housing supply would enable the Community Led sector to approach the challenges with wider eyes than conventional developers could ever conceive of. As a city we need to be prepared to push the boat out and take some risks for the benefit of our communities, families and the next generation of residents.

For professionals this means stepping out of the comfort of our normal operating conditions, rethinking why we do what we do even. The challenge this presents to the profession is as significant as that for the built environment; if we remain within the current legislative and professional conditions which are well established (but regularly attacked) then we simply entrench ourselves. Architects, designers and creatives are naturally inclined and professionally trained to think around situations in a different way, to approach the field without fear of how the boundaries might be re-adjusted, blurred or manipulated to create the kind of society and conditions which we need for the future.

“We live in a machine culture; in our daily lives, we are more and more surrounded by and interfaced with machines. We are no longer, like our ancestors, simply supplied by machines; we live in and through them. From our workplaces to our errands about town to our leisure time at home, human experience is to an unprecedented extent the experience of being interfaced with the machine, of imbibing its logic, of being surrounded by it and seeking it out.” Phoebe Sengers

All of these things that form our cultures, societies and our present human ecology exist with, because of and through machines. Some of these aspects of our lives have gradually developed from human/nature interaction, whilst others have been facilitated through the development of machines and technology, throughout human history as a direct response to the perception of human need or growth. We, as a species, are defined as ‘higher’ than other animals through our ability to make tools and equipment that facilitates our engagement with a subject. This higher intelligence has enabled us to gradually redraw our ecology, taking us from nature reliant to being machine reliant; fundamentally changing our systems of survival, growth, trade, national boundaries, war and peace, etc.

“Technology is a force of Nature. It is the force of the human presence in the world.” Paul Shepheard

This shift in our ecology is clearly visible – it is not just in the urban centers that demonstrate a tangible machine reliance, a trip to the local farm will reveal a huge array of machination that enables the production of vast amounts of raw food product and land cultivation. The city could be considered the epicenter of our machine ecology; it’s bias toward efficiency, growth and commerce has meant that the systems of city occupation are entrenched within the use of machines. From traveling around a city to accessing your home, to entering and exiting a shop or office or even communicating with friends and colleagues – all these systems are utterly reliant upon machines to ensure they operate correctly and maintain the city’s ecology of control and conformity. As a race we broadly appear to thrive upon conformity, schedules and systems of control, therefore it is no surprise that machines with their binary position would have become such a favorite creation.

Cities are the focal point of developed society, they are the location of choice for higher education, technology, commerce and politics and as a result are the most densely populated sectors of human inhabitation. They demonstrate some of the greatest disparity between the rich and poor, educated and uneducated, skilled and unskilled, such disparity would not seem to be becoming of a ‘machine’ like state, yet cities operate like a machine; made up of many systems, networks and smaller machines in sync to maintain an equilibrium enabling them to continue to grow and develop. Today’s Architects of the city have the task of knitting their buildings and their interventions with the built environment into a machine ecology, one that operates a a multitude of levels within our society and culture, our political systems and economic framework. These levels are all touched and influenced by the increasing technological advance of the machine ecology itself, as our machine serfs gradually become more and more capable of complex functions they will take on new roles within our homes, cities & built environment.

“Am I a man or machine? There is no ambiguity in the traditional relationship between man and machine: the worker is always, in a way, a stranger to the machine he operates, and alienated by it. But at least he retains the precious state of alienated man. The new technologies, with their machines, new images and interactive screen, do not alienate me. Rather, they form an integrated circuit with me.” J. Baudrillard, “Xerox and Infinity”

Le Corbusier’s statement regarding the house as a ‘machine for living’ is much quoted and as such has begun to become synonymous – rightly or wrongly – as a nexus point between buildings and machines. The machine is a tool, it is an intervention between man and his ecology and as such Architecture through buildings fundamentally changes the ecological landscape, not just from a ‘nature’ or even visible perspective but from a social and cultural standing. The way we build and the way we live changes changes our ecology and at present this is through most unnatural technology. Today’s buildings are smart, they incorporate a machine nature that enables them to self manage, self sustain and in some instances request change from their human occupants. This building intelligence is is another step away from nature, despite the fact that we are more and more aware of the necessity of understanding and maintaining the natural world for our own existence. The human condition is a duality; a recognition of our reliance upon nature whilst making every effort to create a new nature.

It is this determination to succeed above all others, to compete, to win, that has driven us to create, design, build and utilise an ever increasing genus of machines. From earliest known human history we have seen tools created to take control over the natural world around us, from tools came basic systems and structures and following those the culminations of tools and systems which formed machines in their earliest guise. Even today we are still creating new machines to help us take control of the natural environment, to maintain authority and exercise our continued adjustment of the systems of nature, the systems of the evolved ecology that was once nature and is now machine. Architects can therefore be seen as one particular profession at the forefront of humanity, pushing boundaries of control, approaching new levels of understanding, interaction and application of the natural world as well as machines. As a role player in society, culture and the survival of the race as a whole, the architect must understand and apply these boundaries, levels and interactive situations and recognise how to apply them in our built environment which in itself represents a pinnacle in the whole mountain range of human achievement above and beyond all other life upon the Earth.

So what is the next boundary or level of architecture? What interaction with the natural world will we consider next to be necessary for the growth and increased comfort & ease of living? The built environment is presently being proliferated with buildings that look to draw energy from nature, others that utilise sustainable or recycled materials whilst all new buildings have to maintain a high level of energy usage performance. Our unbridled interdependence with machines in this present age will undoubtedly form the springboard of the next phase of our ecological evolution. Our machines are becoming more capable of complex functions, they can communicate with each other already, many share common languages of binary and programming code enabling them to write and re-write complex analysis of each other’s systems. With Scientists often perporting to be on the cusp of achieving functional Artificial Intelligence and Hollywood creating terrifying visions of what the effects of AI would have upon humanity there is a chasm of mixed emotions, fears and potential delights that could be wrought upon us.

Artificial (Architecture) Intelligence? Architecture’s Artificial Intelligence? (The play on words alone could again form a whole other paper or discussion.) Where does the Architect stand amidst the scene of impending beauty or chaos? In the movie trilogy of The Matrix the position of the architect is depicted as a program (with all it’s expected sense of having been programmed), written by the Machines to create the world of The Matrix as a system to control humanity and utilise them as a source of power, “fate it would seem, is not without a sense of Irony.” If present day Architects do not work to integrate our machine ecology into our architecture at a more embryonic level then we will be left with structures inhabited by machines rather than structural machines that we inhabit. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of creating AI, however the notion that we should create a race of AI machines is perhaps one that would send a shiver of concern up and down the spines of many.

The Human race likes to be in control, it is the reason that we have subjugated nature thus far, the reason we have developed a genus of machines to work for us, the reason architects produce inert buildings. The notion of ‘Living Architecture‘ as proposed by Dr Rachel Armstrong using Protocells to produce active architecture that grows and evolves around us is highly theoretical and equally hard to sell. An active building might well act outside of our control, in a way that is not beneficial. Just because it utilises a ‘natural‘ process does not mean that it will be good and healthy. The process of working with Protocells might well produce interesting, varied and surprising results but it is could be considered a lazy method of sidestepping the development of architecture, materials and technology to a synthetic and second biogenesis with the (perhaps vain) hope that the (as active but non-living ‘blobs’) will revolutionise the human occupation of nature.

“The ‘Protocell’ is a dynamic oil in water droplet system. These simple chemical agents behave in a way that can only be described as ‘living’. They are able to move in their environment, sense it, modify it and undergo complex behaviours some of which have architectural properties.

Protocells are programmable. They are situated in the laws of physics and act according to the chemistry of oils. The behaviour of the protocells can be influenced by the presence of inorganic chemistry, either within the protocell or in the environment, in this way the chemical information in the oil interacts both with its immediate environment as well as other protocells.

Since it is possible to design the metabolism of a protocell, it should be possible for this system to capture carbon dioxide from solution in its environment and turn it into a carbonate, a solid form of the greenhouse gas. Through a series of experiments scientists are taking the first steps towards making coatings for buildings that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The protocell system produces a solid material which could also be used as an architectural material; ‘Biolime’ so called because of it’s similar to the naturally occurring substance limestone, which is made from the skeletons of tiny marine organisms. This mimics the activity of coral reefs which are living organisms capable of converting the carbon Dioxide in water to ‘grow’ their structure.

If the built environment was coated with Biolime then architecture would be able to directly remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” Rachel Armstrong

Protocell architecture is fundamentally based on the assumption that self assembly is better than controlled design because it is bottom up, unpredictable, anarchic and ultimately evolutionary. Systems which operate through self organisation often tend to fail; the survival of the strongest relies upon the destruction of the weakest, the growth of one organism requires the degradation of another. The regular references to Darwinism and evolutionary theory as a metaphor in the Protocell manifesto only serve to demonstrate the evident chasms between these basic forms of cells and their chemical reactions and the development of a tangible and applicable architectural facility. This lack of present tangibility does not mean it should be ignored, there is definite potential in exploring the use of Protocells that could well hold the key for providing truly sustainable cities for the future, but I do not believe that they in themselves will prove to be much more than an interesting experiment in directing chemical reactions and harnessing the results.

The notion that Protocells form a ‘living (self organising) architecture’ is in itself somewhat flawed; the cells are programmed, they are designed to perform a particular task with the hope of particular results. They’re ‘own‘ path through the soup in which they’re placed in or their reactionary chemical construct is not so much of a living response, more of a simple counteraction – every action has an equal and opposite reaction – a classic law of mechanics as demonstrated by Newton. Protocells are perhaps more machinic than natural, they are designed and created by mankind trying to emulate a natural and truly alive system with the thought that if you just create the ideal conditions something non-living but active will happen. “To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think that anything more is needed.” George Wright, 1954. In 58 years with all our incredible advances in technology and science we are still unable to create anything living and Protocells are therefore not really a development at all. It is possible that growing architecture in this way could have a very long timeframe, not only initially whilst it is researched, developed and mobilised but also in it’s effectiveness in giving back to the nature that it is trying so hard to replicate.

Our present toolbox houses vast amounts of technology that we understand, that is controllable and that is tested and beneficial. It would however appear that what we lack is the foresight to integrate so much of it into our day to day buildings. We see one off museums or stadiums, university buildings and schools that showcase one element of this technology at our disposal; a green roof, a rainwater collection and recycling system, photo-voltaic and other light activated technologies etc. The careful, considered and controlled combination of these technologies already in existence could be brought together to form machinic component architecture that forms (a) benevolent machine(s) as well as a building. When buildings are designed to give back more than they take out then they become carbon negative, they begin to rebuild nature even whilst they occupy it.

Architects must stop producing static inert buildings and begin compiling sustainable structures with benevolent purpose aside of shelter, influence and aesthetics. It has only been in the last 50-100 years that in our ‘developed’ architecture we have begun to use our walls and roofs as a blanket as well as the building shell. Walls, floors, ceilings do not just have to form structure within which we place our machines for use, a floor that incorporates piezo-electric technology also acts as an energy generator, a wall formed of concrete with a reinforced metal mesh within it can also act as a RF/MW shield, cladding systems that collect rainwater and filter it for use, or mitigate against unwanted sound, or harness solar energy, or all of the above at once! The possibilities for engaging architecture as a machine component is enormous, through this technological approach architecture can become the confluence between nature and machine – the nexus, the catalyst for a new practice.

As a machine reliant race we should look towards the next jump in our machinic development. As architects we hold a critical position in our societies, balancing both the ever increasing urbanity of our culture and the need to protect, partner with and even improve our natural environment. We have always used machines to assist our needs and aspirations, yet architecture is only just beginning to recognise the value of looking at it’s product in the same way as an engineer or designer might look at a machine. We create buildings and fill them with machines to live with, when what we should be doing is creating machines that we can live in. I consider Biomimicratic architecture to be the next stage of the evolution of our machinic culture, embracing the technology that we have already developed and incorporating it into machines for living and working in will ensure that our 21st century cities are not static and inert but active agents in the replenishment and prioritisation of our natural environment.

After all my ranting and raving for my DRS I ended up writing a more ‘balanced’ paper according to my tutor, seeing as getting marks was the aim of the exercise i figured I’d better tone it down! Because I went to quite a lot of effort to format it nicely I’m loading it up as a series of images of the pages, sorry if that’s annoying but I simply don’t have the time nor patience to re-format again!

“There is no such thing as bad architecture; only good architecture and non-architecture.”Ernesto Rogers

Taking Reyner Banham’s view of A black box : The secret profession of architecture as a starting point for considering the professions position, it would appear that it has lost touch with with normality, presenting tangible outputs but being unintelligible to the mainstream throughout it’s conception, production and activity. This paper will look to analyse to what extent present educational systems and practices support this idea and present an opportunity to investigate the resulting outcomes of a re-engagement between education and different types of practice -both accepted and side-lined examples- that perhaps offer a glimpse of an alternative system of creating architecture.

Architecture could be described as bi-polar; it would appear that the profession and it’s proponents are constantly stretched between two opposing and disparate determinations about it’s/their role, both in and of themselves and within the wider context of sentient life on planet Earth. The problem at hand here is that Architecture no longer operates like a conventional field of human activity, – that is, by people, with people, for people – it has stepped out of the mainstream of accessible professions, setting itself apart from all other creative fields to try to elevate itself to and maintain a ‘mother of the arts’ role. The profession has to break away from these ‘official histories’ and ‘black box’ autonomy mentalities that have gradually built up since Vitruvius and engage with the common public again, as long as it remains within the keep of it’s canons it cannot do that, it will remain aloof and self aggrandising.

The association, use of and proliferation of power in and through the profession of Architecture has been analysed from several angles, most notably by Michel Foucault and Henri Lefebvre who respectively would argue (broadly speaking) that Architects are merely pawns in a larger regime of power and control, or, alternatively that Architects are active agents who exercise their own power and manipulate it for controlling purposes. Architecture has long been used as a tool for demonstrating power, from banks to monuments, palaces to country houses, these are just some examples of how building become a physical manifestation of power. This proliferation of Architecture as icon has been on the increase throughout the latter half of the last millennium but the upward curve has taken an almost vertical trajectory during the last 25 years alone with multiple new towers and headquarters, museums and galleries, schools and stadiums being designed and built every year around the globe forming a veritable smorgasbord ofbuilt objects all pushing new heights of aesthetic beauty and structural finesse in multiple societies and cultures.

Foucault has written extensively about power and it’s position, location and use/abuse within society. Whilst he hasn’t specifically written about education in itself “as some of the new nineteenth-century institutions of power, Foucault inferred that schools, colleges, and universities employed the “generic ‘micro technologies of power’ (‘surveillance,’ ‘normalisation,’and ‘examination’) to transform subjects from one state to another.” So when talking about Architectural education it would follow that the pedagogic systems in place should ‘normalise’ or ‘socialise’ it’s participants using the power that it inherently has as an educational institution. In Architectural education that power is in the hands of the tutors, lecturers and visiting practitioners who have already passed through the ‘black box’ as Banham would describe it – that is a group of socialised people that “retreat into a rarified and self-referential world” that “appears as the exercise of an arcane and privileged code.” This retreat is demonstrated in schools of architecture across the globe as discussed by Till in his book Architecture Depends, with students entering the course as “normal, situated, humans and come out as rather abnormal, detached, members of the tribe.” Within all schools of architecture (which in themselves are very particular societies) there are complex strategical situations such as the crit. Helena Webster writes about how this architectural educational institution forms part of the black box and equally how it is a physical and psychological demonstration of the power and truth that reside with the visiting qualified (those who have already passed through the black box) architects and tutors. Foucault suggests that it is these kind of settings that demonstrate real power, “Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.” The role of the crit in forming the architectural brain of a student into thinking, speaking, responding and reacting could be argued as the nub of the power within the black box of architectural education.

Part of this discourse relates to the notion of truth, Foucault discusses that each society has it’s own truth and it could be argued that this notion could be applied to the field of architecture where the canons and official histories are presented as ‘truth’ and therefore the knowledge of that truth becomes power. Lev Shevtsov notes that “Truth found inside a tightly sealed room is hardly any use outside; judgements made inside a room which, for fear of draughts is never aired, are blown away with the first gust of wind.” The black box of architectural education acts like a sealed room, with official histories and professional truths presented as truths rather than viewpoints or opinions, perhaps slightly in the fear that subjectivity might creep in over and above objectivity – as if that were unacceptable within a creative field.

Jeremy Till suggests that there is an architecture outside of the ‘official histories’ or ‘truth’ that could equally be presented to architectural students; “between the architecture as described in the official histories, and the architecture whose story is rarely told… people who dare to eschew the greats and the specials, and look to the everyday, the social, and the economic as forces that shape architecture” such as Paul Oliver and Bernard Rudofsky in their individual books on Vernacular Architecture. These ‘non-architectural’ productions are often eschewed and placed alongside the idea of ‘bad architecture’ or non-design – Reyner Banham tells this story; “In a telling example from my own experience, I once found myself defending point by point a student design for a penthouse apartment that had been failed by my academic colleagues. I secured their agreement that it fulfilled all the requirements of the programme, was convenient in its spatial dispositions, well lit, build-able on the roof-structure in question and that all this could be seen in the drawing pinned up for judgment. But the drawing was scratchily done in ball-point on one sheet of what appeared to be institutional toilet paper; and ‘result to architecture’. The year master announced, thus making it clear that, for him, the effective design of buildings was apparently something other than ‘architecture’.”

Separating Architecture and non-architecture as a system of discrimination stems from the side of architecture that is all about the ‘how’, the process; the theory/concept/drawing/construction/occupation – that is and will always remain within the domain of ‘architecture’ due to it being written in the secret language of the architects tribe long passed down from generation to generation. However if Architecture relies solely upon this “discourse through special drawn and oral codes, more than technical terms and methods of presentation, akin to a private language” then it’s power as a profession will likely become eroded as it is mis-understood, mis-represented and mistaken within the public realm. This alienation of the profession threatens the very activity or architecture by undermining the authority and experience that it can bring to the social, cultural, political and economic table.

The alternative side of the profession is the school of thinking that embraces the breaking of the mould, relishes in new forms of language to design with and a greater interaction with normal everyday life that the majority of the population would understand and be able to engage with. In this modus operandi architecture is about the end result – the product/ building/object/monument/system, that is, the public and accessible nub of the designer’s skill and engagement. For these practices the ‘how’ merely represents the process of taking a building from a client’s request and budget to it’s physical manifestation through space and cost design, planning, building regulations, contract administration and construction. The ‘how’ does not necessarily make the output architecture more than just a buildingand neither does the ‘what’. Pevsner’s suggestion that Lincoln Cathedral is a definition of Architecture whilst a bicycle shed is not falls insultingly short of either side of the profession and serves to suggest that Architecture is more about systems of power and control than space and use. Generally the output space or structure is created in response to a practical or economic need which makes it as a product accessible to the general public as it connects with readily recognisable inputs and outputs such as poverty and alleviation or production and storage etc.

(insert : discussion about critical regionalism and non-modernism regionalism (Kenneth Frampton and Steven Moore) and the place of vernacularism)

Rethinking education

The role of architectural education has to be pre-eminent in any discussion regarding moving the profession of architecture forward, it is where the values that define both architects and the practices they eventually set up are established. The architects brain is trained and moulded during education, Banham and Till both discuss this and demonstrate a certain level of disdain for the manner in which we’re all socialised into the ‘tribe’ – architects train architects to be architects using architectural canons. They use the training of architects to paint a picture that shows how the profession and most architects are so engrained in the ‘black box’ mono-culture that they have become isolated, unimpeachable and pretentious. Maglia Sarfatti Larson argues that this isolation or autonomy is justified stating that the “professional’s claim of possessing a special and superior knowledge, which should therefore be free of lay evaluation and protected from inexpert interference.”For the profession of Architecture to move forward it is important that this freedom from interference be re-evaluated. ‘Lay evaluation’ suggests a source that lacks training or understanding – perhaps in the form of another profession or critic – and whilst any interference or criticism from this source might smack of impudence it could equally come with an insight that such a self referential profession as architecture cannot possess within it’s own quarters: think again of Shevtsov’s assertion regarding truth in a sealed room.

At birth the brain has only formed around 50% of it’s neural connections, the remainder are established throughout our lives. Now the brain has a certain plasticity which enables it to configure and reconfigure these connections which ultimately determine our decision making modes and thinking processes etc. As these are most strongly formed during our younger years, particularly whilst within education it is critical that the education of future architectures is considered as needing to think differently to suit our changing culture and society. Harry Mallgrave discussed how “the brain of the Renaissance or Nineteenth century architect was configured differently from the brain of the twenty first century architect, for better or worse.” With our methods of production becoming ever more digital the way we think through a process changes rapidly and requires new skills and attitudes, to deal with this we have to take the opportunity to enable a new generation of architects to think more outside the box, more broadly and with more focus too.

(Insert : Expanding architectural education as a means of expanding the field)

Rethinking practice

“There exists today two kinds of modern architecture. A public standardised, international-style architect’s architecture that may be perceived as arrogant or even provocatively aggressive; and a private architecture, often based on regional models, that blends naturally and harmoniously within the architecture of existing landscapes and cities.”

This divide of the profession parallels that of theory and practice within the ‘black box’ itself; Edwin Gardner is one architect who has begun to assess this divide and investigate how one might bridge it in a series of essays upon the Archis.org blog. In his post entitled ‘Architecture left to it’s own devices’ (which was subsequently published in Volume Journal #22) he demonstrates the disparity between the two camps, “whilst knowledge may accumulate in the office, it remains intangible and ephemeral because it travels in heads, not in books. In the office, it’s all about applying knowledge. Where academia judges knowledge on originality, rigour, argumentation and referencing, practice is only interested in knowledge’s effects.” Understanding informs doing and architecture in all it’s forms requires understanding of not only the theory of things but also the application of that theory otherwise the resulting ‘doing’ is weak. “Conventional practice renounces theory, but in so doing, it simply reiterates unstated theoretical assumptions. If theory imposes regulated ideological criteria over the undisciplined heterogeneity of the real, the unstated assumptions of conventional practice enforce known solutions and safe repetitions.”

Stan Allen proposes an alternative way of looking at practice in light of the tension between conventional architectural practice and the function of architectural theory serving it; He proposes that instead of seeingtheory and practice as competitors in an abstract battle and to cheer for one or the other installing theory within practice and defining practice as either ‘material’ “(concerned with matter, forces, and material change, activities that transform reality by producing new objects or new organisations of matter.)” or ‘discursive’ “(hermeneutic, primarily textual, bound up with representation and interpretation… critical, discursive and interpretive.)” which would eliminate the categorisation of theory and practice and enable them to work efficiently with different elements of the same field. Discursive practice would work with the gaps between and inconsistencies of theoretical texts, analysing the past to produce more texts which provide an “overarching theoretical construct, expressed in a medium other than buildings and drawings.” Meanwhile Material practice would be involved in the operations of translating such constructs and transforming matter for the future generating spatial outcomes, working for clients and creating architecture. An example of one practice that demonstrated this ability was that of Alison and Peter Smithson; Peter Salter discusses how in the practice biography ‘Architecture is not made in the Brain’; “One learnt how idea became strategy, and how strategy became the rules for detail. The consistency of the building, came through this folding together of strategy and construction detail.”

(Insert : discuss alternative practices such as Rural Studio, TYIN Tegnestue and Crimson Architectural Historians for examples of work with a greater anthropological bias)

“There is no such thing as bad architecture; only good architecture and non-architecture.”Ernesto Rogers

Architecture is bi-polar; it would appear that the profession and it’s proponents are constantly stretched between two opposing and disparate determinations about it’s/their role, both in and of themselves and within the wider context of life on planet Earth. On one side there is a school of thinking that embraces the breaking of the mould, relishes in new forms of language to design with and a greater interaction with normal everyday life that the majority of the population would understand and be able to engage with. “In a telling example from my own experience, I once found myself defending point by point a student design for a penthouse apartment that had been failed by my academic colleagues. I secured their agreement that it fulfilled all the requirements of the programme, was convenient in its spatial dispositions, well lit, build-able on the roof-structure in question and that all this could be seen in the drawing pinned up for judgment. But the drawing was scratchily done in ball-point on one sheet of what appeared to be institutional toilet paper; an ‘result to architecture’, the year master announced, thus making it clear that, for him, the effective design of buildings was apparently something other than ‘architecture’.” In this modus operandi architecture is about the end result – the product/building/object/monument /system, that is; the public and accessible nub of the designer’s skill and engagement.

On the opposite side of the tracks is the school of thinking that would wish to keep architecture within it’s ‘black box’ as Reyner Banham would describe it – that is a group of socialised people that “retreat into a rarified and self-referential world” that “appears as the exercise of an arcane and privileged code.” This retreat is demonstrated in schools of architecture across the globe as discussed by Jeremy Till his book Architecture Depends, with students entering the course as “normal, situated, humans and come out as rather abnormal, detached, members of the tribe.” This stems from the thinking that architecture is all about the ‘how’, the process; the theory/concept/drawing/construction/occupation – that is and will always remain within the domain of ‘architecture’ due to it being written in the secret language of the architects tribe long passed down from generation to generation.

The role of architectural education is paramount in any discussion regarding moving the profession of architecture forward. Banham and Till both demonstrate a certain level of disdain for the manner in which we’re all socialised into the ‘tribe’ – architects train architects to be architects using architectural canons. They use the training of architects to paint a picture that shows how the profession and most architects are so engrained in the ‘black box’ mono-culture that they have become isolated, unimpeachable and pretentious.

This divide of the profession parallels that of theory and practice within the ‘black box’ itself; Edwin Gardner begins to assess this divide and investigate how one might bridge it in a series of essays upon the Archis.org blog. In his post entitled ‘Architecture left to it’s own devices’ (which was subsequently published in Volume Journal #22) he demonstrates the disparity between the two camps, “whilst knowledge may accumulate in the office, it remains intangible and ephemeral because it travels in heads, not in books. In the office, it’s all about applying knowledge. Where academia judges knowledge on originality, rigour, argumentation and referencing, practice is only interested in knowledge’s effects.”Understanding informs doing, architecture requires understanding.

Jeremy Till discusses this notion that Architecture is dependant upon everything else out there to make it happen. There is a divide between what architecture is as a multi-disciplined profession and what architects wishfully want it to be and similarly “between the architecture as described in the official histories, and the architecture whose story is rarely told… people who dare to eschew the greats and the specials, and look to the everyday, the social, and the economic as forces that shape architecture.” such as Paul Oliver and Bernard Rudofsky in their individual books on Vernacular Architecture. On the other side of the coin, Rationalists such as Massimo Scolari saw this diversity as a negative diversion from the canons stating that the pursuit of immersing architecture in “political, economic, social and technical events only … mask[ed] it’s own creative and formal sterility.”

Architecture has to break away from these ‘official histories’ and ‘black box’ mentalities that have been utilised in an attempt to maintain a position of ‘mother of the arts’ or an autonomous realm of design. The profession has to engage with normal life more easily and as long as it remains within the keep of it’s canons it cannot do that, it will remain aloof and self aggrandising. I will examine the problem and some of the proffered solutions to achieve this emancipation and in doing so aim to substantiate my own growing dissatisfaction with the profession into which I am being initiated.

Here’s a hastily written rant that could turn into something useful for my DRS; feedback appreciated!

Throughout the C.20th Architecture underwent a critical period of evaluation and definition, re-evaluation and subsequently numerous further definitions with the field splitting into two positions on the role and activity of architecture today. The first would define Architecture as a convergence of economics, politics, sociology, culture and history, whilst the second would see architecture as a single event or object expressing individuality of either the architect or client through the filter of multiple contexts which determine it’s production. The first definition suggests that Architecture is a multiple discipline with Architects acting as agents for all of these fields and working to maintain control over them. The second isolates Architecture as predominantly interested in the built object but accepts that said built object will be an outcome of multiple forces acting upon it. This differs from the first view fundamentally as it retains the architect in the position of only taking responsibility for the building as an object, the effects on or of society, culture, the economy or politics are seen to be secondary to the occupation.

The idea that architecture could be separated from such mega-themes is contrary to most of current architectural education where students are encouraged and tutored in acting as sociologists, economists, philosophers, artists, historians and politicians to compose a thesis for their work. Often there appears to be a greater emphasis placed on forming and maintaining a complex thesis above and beyond the success of any final architectural proposal. The notion that architects should be expected to operate as any of the above mentioned roles hints at a somewhat friday afternoon nature for producing buildings, as if it were the least important element. If the built object is only the bolt-on to the pre-eminent thesis then one must question whether the architect is actually the best person to design it! Architecture is in danger or over academicising it’s students at the expense of teaching them how to design buildings that are successful and a pleasure to occupy. Massimo Scolari recognised this back in the 1960’s stating that the pursuit of immersing architecture in “political, economic, social and technical events only … mask[ed] it’s own creative and formal sterility.” 1 This damning indictment of multidisciplinary architectural activity was also picked up by Aldo Rossi in his book The Architecture of the City where he describes architecture as a “singular urban artefact” 2 that in it’s monumentality enables us to see the richness of the urban fabric through comparison and contrast.

Proponents of a multi-disciplinarian architecture argue that architecture is a product that cannot be separated from capitalist society, every building acts as a sign, a social force that operates amidst multiple disciplines to do more than just create internal spaces and external landscapes. Jean Baudrillard goes so far as to suggest in his book ‘The system of objects’ that architecture is overdetermined by a series of external forces (economic, social, political & cultural) and as a result the autonomy of architecture is merely an illusion. 3 The Avant-garde movement in the early c.20th suggested that the role of architecture as an object within society was dead, dissolved by it’s own social forces, this was reinforced in the late 1960’s when in France there was a critical period of social unease with some action directed towards architects as the proponents of “formal and symbolic practice”. 4 If society requests that architecture cease making formal and symbolic objects in our cities then surely it is necessary for the discipline to diversify, grappling with new methods of working as well as creating new conditions for it’s own urban action and engagement. If not, then what is the alternative? One could argue that methodologies such as parametrics can provide alternative forms and structures that do not present any existing symbolism and perhaps such architecture, devoid of icon or symbolism, familiar forms or typologies, can release the architect to create a building as a building, rather than a social condenser, urban landscape, economic dealer or political vehicle. I don’t believe that the future of architecture and particularly urbanism can lie with number crunching through 3D modelling software, there has to be a return to being unafraid of using forms that define a building, scale to denote authority and an acceptance that a building can stand on it’s own without relying on an overarchingsocio-political thesis to connect the building with the rest of the urban landscape. The need for such over determination could be read as a response to the contraction of our own humanist communities; the increase of social media correlates with agradual decline of physical interaction and will require us to connect our cities together tighter and tighter using the built environment – be that on a physical/media/infrastructural/social or cultural level – to try to retain a sense of belonging in an ever fragmented city.